christianityfandomcom-20200214-history
Christianity Knowledge Base talk:What is a Christian
This page should serve as the definitive debating arena to determine what groups, denominations, persons, or otherwise are defined as Christians, for the purposes of determining the CPOV. Also, remember Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge others, lest ye be judged...." so everyone, let's try not to judge people, we can say whether or not someone's theology would make them a non-Christian or not without judging them about things. Remember, even the most adament of Satanists could be a Christian who has been taken over by anti-Christ nanoprobes or something. The sides There probably are some. It might be useful to list them before we begin this so we all know where we stand. :The big one is that some conservative Trinitarians do not accept Nontrinitarians as true Christians. In some cases, the inverse is also true. Archola 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ::Hmm, the problem is the very word "trinity", because its not in the Bible, can be redefined as much as people want, so I suppose a "non-trinitarian" could understand and admit compleatly that Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy spirit is God without actually calling it a "trinity". Homestarmy 03:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) A proposed first issue I think we might as well start with the big things, I (Homestarmy) propose that any and all groups or persons who claim that Jesus is not God or another god besides God will be considered for the purposes of this knowladge base as non-Christians, and their perspectives thereof shall be rendered invalid in all CPOV gaining endeavours. /discuss. :We already have a Jehovah's Witness editor who would disagree with you. Remember what nsandwhich said: we are not anti-Jehovah's Witnesses. :The real issue here is that Homestarmy's definition focuses on correct doctrine (orthodoxy). This could quickly disintegrate into an argument between various Christian denominations. A broader definition of "Christian" is that they believe that Jesus was sent by God, and have some concept of Jesus as Christ. Will this work? Archola 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ::I propose that we are also not anti-Christian either :/. if the doctrine is correct, then how is this an incorrect assertion? That editor already said that CARM was wrong in his/her opinion, and CARM says that Jehovah's witnesses do not believe Jesus was God, so how do we know what that editor even believes in the first place? Besides, the broader we go, the more we get into people who certainly are not Christians, Islam believes Jesus was sent by God, and also believe him to be the "Messiah" (They have a different definition), I think the same goes for Bah'ai, Gnosticism is also covered by that, the list goes on and on, and is precisely why I feel my proposel is quite necessary to the definition of Christianity. Homestarmy 03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :::Well, Muslims and Bahai-ists don't even call themselves Christians. Modern Gnostics don't, either, although the term is used of historical Gnostics. I think everyone who identifies as Christian today at least accepts the Gospels, the epistles of Paul, and the works of John (Gospel of John, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John, and Revelations). This is also known as Pauline Christianity. I think all Christians these days are Pauline Christians, it's just that different denominations interpret the texts differently. Archola 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::::And there's the other thing, how do we treat liberal christians, that is to say, people who claim to be christians yet will simply ignore or groosly bend scripture out to shape to justify their own wants and needs? For instance, lets say I wanted the Bible not to condemn adultery. First, let's split "adultery" into "adult ery", then twist in a rhymed word, "adult erie" and put it back in and add some context just because, now i've got, "Thou shalt not commit the act of being an adult at lake erie". It's that kind of stuff that "different interpretations" covers, and things that ridiculous are very real, there's some group out there (I think it's Mormonism) that has twisted "atonement" in a similar fashion to how I just pretended to twist "adultery", rather than "atonement" they claim it is actually "at one ment", not because they have any real evidence for this in particular, but because they pretty much merely feel it is right, and therefore believe that rather than repent, all verses about atonement simply mean to be with God. According to the Bible, all those who do not repent will perish. This is serious stuff which can't be left up to "let's let other groups interpret scripture however they want and assume everyone who says they are a Christian is a Christian", you see what I mean? Homestarmy 03:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Interesting point. I guess we could say that liberal Christians say x, y, z, but conservative christians say a,b,c instead. Or, you could ask our benevolent dicator Nsandwich. Just as long as we don't excommunicate each other ;) Archola 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :But that's just it, by "liberal" I mean extremely flexible to the point of they will believe whatever they wish to believe no matter what the Bible actually says. There isn't really a "liberal church of Christ", it's just a large range of people who can really be anywhere and believe anything. And it doesn't have to be obvious either, like people who think Genesis is just a "fairy tale" or an "open ended metaphor", but speaking of Genesis, that might make for a good second issue to discuss, but not yet. Going back on track, if you have a person who claims to be a Christian and doesn't think Jesus is God, how do you propose they will be born again if they are not believing in Jesus, but rather, a different Jesus? Homestarmy 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::I suppose we could always nail some theses to their doors ;) Seriously, though, I don't have an answer. Archola 03:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC) What I would suggest is the concept that the difference between Christian religious choices and non-Christian religious choices (even those that deal with Christ such as Islam, etc.) lies in the method of salvation: One way or the other, all Christian denominations state that the only way to be saved is through Christ. Whether that's before or after baptism, with or without communion, tongues, no tongues, tribulation and rapture, none of the above, whatever, all Christians are saved through Christ. So, the primary point in our CPOV is that "Salvation is only attained through Jesus Christ." If an individual, group, or denomination disagrees with that, well, they're essentially going against 2000 years of Christian history and probably do not deserve to receive positive credence here. --Avery W. Krouse 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :For this particular proposel, (I figure we'll probably have to go through many of them) I just thought i'd stick with the what I thought was simple notion that Jesus is God, since that is the only way He could provide salvation. But basically yea, that's pretty much the idea of a CPOV. The thing is though that gets into another issue, the word choice of "only" there gets into work-based salvation and possibly certain areas of Catholicism, and well, I just thought i'd start with a simple enough proposel to agree on heh. Homestarmy 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::That is a good starting point. I am going to add that to the page as well as the CPOV. We can build on that. I still think we may eventually have to address my earlier proposal that we arbitrarily establish "major" denominations. Perhaps the largest 3 or 5 denominations, or even just Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism. Perhaps as a rule, articles would follow this format for sections: ::"Introduction"/etc. (stuff that is common to all 3 or 5) ::"Catholic Interpretations" (as needed) ::"Protestant Interpretations" (as needed) ::"Orthodox Interpretations" (as needed) ::"Other Interpretations" (as needed) ::This latter section would contain links to subarticles for an unlimited number of Christian denominations and their particular views, if they happen to differ. Keep in mind most articles will not have these sections at all. Christians don't disagree on every single point, hehe. When I say Christians, I am going with Avery's definition above. "all Christian denominations state that the only way to be saved is through Christ." That's my proposal. Thoughts/suggestions? ::-- nsandwich 05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :::Just an addition. This is worth looking at by everyone involved in this debate: Christian denominations by # of members as well as List of Christian Denominations. :::Well see Nsandwich, therein lies the problem, I think according to modern Catholicism some exceptionally "good" people might make it to purgatory whether their saved or not :/. But then Catholicism is so widespread it gets a bit different when you cross the ocean. So I don't know. I think it's right that Jesus is the only way because the Bible comes out and says it point blank, but what I think we need is to figure out just what other denominations, even Catholicism, believe, so that we can confront it head on now rather than dealing with it later when more editors show up. It also seems to me that articles need to be from a perspective of "This is what the Bible says" as well, besides simply noting what denominations say what, because denominations can change, but the Bible doesn't. :D Homestarmy 13:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Benevolent Dictatorship Hi folks. I know this is off-topic but I wanted to be very clear on something. I am not the dictator of this site, benevolent or otherwise. This is a community effort. Everything I say should be subject to interpretation, suggestion, and contribution. Nothing I say should be taken as "the final word" on any matter. I may be the founder, but I am neither the sole administrator nor sole contributor, and I don't feel like I should have any special status. Just wanted to be clear on that ;) -- nsandwich 05:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :It was just by analogy with Wikipedia's Jimbo. I didn't mean anything else by it. :Perhaps "Benevolant Bureaucrat" would be better? I've been told that's your access level, and you seem benevolant to me. Archola 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::No offence taken. Benevolent Bureaucrat... hehe I'll go with it! :) -- nsandwich :::I didn't mean to imply that you should make your opinion the final word here, I was just saying that technically, it is (even if the last word is that your word is not the last word!). You seem to be a good Benevolent Bureaucrat, and your name makes me hungry! --MonkeeSage 05:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::::Monkeys make me hungry. -- nsandwich :::::Monkeys? And here I thought he was taking the Last Train to Clarksville on a Pleasant Valley Sunday. Y'know, the prefab 4. Archola 05:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC) The first musical concert I ever went to was a Monkees concert! Our Benevolent Bureaucrat looks like Davey Jones, what a dream boat! heheheh! (j/k, I'm a male) ;) --MonkeeSage 08:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :The first concert I went to was Charley Pride. I was a fetus at the time, so I don't really remember it. Archola 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC) --128.187.157.15 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC) A reciprocal definition? Okay, this is just a thought, but how about we only include in the definition of Christianity those who, by their own definition, do not exclude us. In other words, a reciprocal definition. For example, Mormons think that everyone else is apostate, Jehovah's Witness believe similarly. So we exclude them from the definition of Christian, because in the nature of the case they exclude us, no matter what definition we use. I'm not saying that we should do this out of a vindictive spirit, like "you won't include me, well I'll show you! We exclude you too!! So there!" I'm just thinking that this might be a more objective/defensible criteria than what may be perceived as a more subjective criteria (like the Deity of Christ). The exclusion is mutual on this scheme, so if a LDS or whatever says "hey, you can't say I'm not a Christian" we can say "Well, by your definition of Christian, we are not Christians, but we consider ourselves Christians, which means that you have excluded yourselves from our definition." Again, this is just a thought. Now have at it! ;) --MonkeeSage 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :See also User:Inkybutton. He's a JW. Also, btw, Storm Rider on Wikipedia is a Mormon, and he doesn't mind saying that the rest of us are Christians. I'm not sure if your point is valid. :For that matter, the Roman Catholic Church once excluded the Eastern Orthodox...not to mention us Protestants! Archola 05:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::Yes. Archola's point, sadly, is a very good one. Even within the denominations, there will be some that think one way, and others that think that everyone else is a non-believer who worships the devil. That's why I started out from day one from the standpoint that we should try to be as inclusionary as possible. Anyone willing to call themselves a Christian (whatever the heck it means to them) can further our understanding of Christianity. All contributions just need to be subject to some kind of rules (as outlined above, for example). -- nsandwich :::I have enough ELCA in me to be ecumenical. Archola 05:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::I don't know the official LDS doctrine on the matter, but the Watchtower position has been aply exposition in their literature. For example: ::: A third requirement is that we be associated with God’s channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in the ark in Noah’s day survived the Flood, and only those associated with the Christian congregation in the first century had God’s favor. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it. (Watchtower, 2/15/1983 p. 12). ::: What is the prognosis for sick Christendom? Very poor. Should we, then, take Catholic bishop Butler’s advice, to "join church without more ado and to lend our aid to her continual 'purification' from within her ranks"? No! Divided and divisive Christendom will not survive. (Mark 3:24, 25) She is part of a world empire of false religion called Babylon the Great. (Revelation 18:2, 3) This bloodguilty religious system faces imminent destruction at God’s hand. (Watchtower, 7/1/1994 p. 7). ::: In a way far different from how He uses the modern-day Assyrian “ax,” Jehovah has used as his instrument the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Jehovah has used it as his agency in laying bare Scripturally the falsity of the religion of Babylon the Great, including Christendom. Jehovah has used this Society in warning all peoples (especially professed Christian people) to get out of that world empire of false religion before He executes judgment upon it. The publications of the Watch Tower Society have gone out to the whole world in the hundreds of millions of copies, in now more than 160 languages. Never in all its operations for now more than ninety years has this instrument in Jehovah’s hand tried to imitate the ancient "Assyrian" and "enhance itself over" the One using it, namely, the unreachably High One, the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. (Watchtower, 1/15/1976 p. 52). ::I thought that the LDS held a similar view of their organization, but I don't have any official statements to that effect offhand. But I know of some other groups who have definitions of "Christian" similar to the JW's (e.g., Christadelphians regarding the unbaptized), so I think that the concept is workable, regardless of which groups would be included/excluded. ::Ps. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994 has affirmed that protestants are Christians CCC 819. --MonkeeSage 06:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :::Well, 1994 is a lot later than 1483. Martin Luther and John Calvin were both long dead by the time that Catholics recognized Protestants. BTW, what are you doing reading The Watchtower? Their doctrine may or may not have changed since 1976, but, well, I don't know. Archola 06:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Here's something else to consider: a comment from Wikipedia's Talk:Jesus page: Yeah, after reading Homestarmy's comments there, I say "no thanks". There is more than plenty basis to say that Jesus was not God, all from the Bible. People who strive to follow all of Jesus' commands (often even moreso than most Trinitarians), believe Jesus is the Christ who was sent by God to provide salvation, stay away from pagan influences in Christianity, read the Bible daily and do their best to be the best Christians they can be, and yet do not agree with the teaching of the Trinity (for very good and justifiable reasons) do not deserve the kind of bashing that will inevitably (already) occur over there. No thanks. --Oscillate 05:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Also consider Matthew 7:5. Is there anything in our eyes? Archola 06:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :Hey, I keep an open mind, even as a closed-minded fundie! ;) When I first heard about the JWs, I studied their beliefs. I didn't accept them, but I did give them an honest chance. Since then, being one who like to wrangle over theology, I've discussed their beliefs with them through various channels, mostly in person and on IRC chatrooms, so I have looked up various sources. :I'm not suggesting we exclude anyone from participating in the project, I just want to make that clear. I'm suggesting a working criteria for the definition of "Christian" (as with the suggested criteria of the Deity of Christ). I also don't mean to imply that those who don't fit under my suggested ruberic, don't really have a saving relationship with Christ -- only God knows that! -- and I am just as lible to judgment as the next sinner reddemed by Christ's blood. --MonkeeSage 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::Yeah, I talked to some JW's 15 years ago, so I have a vague idea of what they believe. I agree that God knows who's right. For that matter, as a wise Jew once said "God knows what God is." My concern is that we've already sacred at least one person away (namely Oscillate). What's next, the Great Schism? ::BTW I first heard about the JWs when they knocked on my door! It's a humbling experienced being evangalized to by people who are sure they are just as right as you are. Eh, God only knows. Archola 06:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :::One thing i've noticed about cult-esque groups, just as modern day Christianity has members who don't really act like Christian or barely believe the things in the Bible, even cults have a few people who don't actually follow their cults beliefs. For instance, a Jehovah's witness, even if they only read their own Bible translation, may develop their theology over time to be more in line with that Bible rather than the Watchtower, which has a very biased and sometimes preoposterous interpretation of their own Bible. What I propose is that if we come across an editor who says their part of one of these groups, we simply ask what they personally believe. And we have to ask people to define their terms too, many groups twist words around so that words like "repentence", "salvation", "faith", "Judgement day", and many others have radically different meanings than the Bible's meaning. If we simply start excluding people if they say they belong to so and so we may miss a chance to show them that their not following who they think their following because they found the truth on their own, and then we might miss a chance to help people, or we might exclude people who may be compleatly Christian simply because we might get skittish at their denominatinoal association. Im very concerned about the Great Commision in this heh. I mean, obviously if someone tells us their beliefs and their in line with any groups we can plainly observe are not Christian, then we shouldn't let their POV stand in any articles, but even after that, we can still evangelize to people. It's like we can make this wiki into a magnet for evangelism almost :D. But going back to the original thing, I do think it's pretty reasonable that if there's an extremely small, very modern sort of denomination that has sprung up and claims that they have something along the lines of "hidden knowladge" or whatever that only they are right and all other Christians are wrong, we probably shouldn't just assume that they are actually Christian. That sort of thing actually applies to a whole bunch of groups as I understand it. And by the way, why did Oscillate think I was blasting non-trinitarians? :/. Homestarmy 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Since I'm browsing through this trying to get up to speed on the site, I thought I'd try to clarify the Mormon view of other Christians a bit. There is a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that refers to the LDS Church as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth."http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1/30#30. This is related to our belief in restored priesthood authority and living prophets. I believe Catholics make a similar claim to priesthood authority. But Mormons definitely consider other Christians as Christian, where Christian would be taken to mean "someone who believes that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ." --Robert C. 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC) A thesis plus antithesis makes a...synthesis! Okay, mabye here is a good synthesis (emphasis on mabye!): Christian = One who believes that Christ is the only way to salvation, and who accepts the canonical Gospels and Pauline epistles as Scripture. Each subgroup within this broad category can get a section/page of their own to elaborate on their own particular nuances to this definition and to mark exclusions from it (if they wish). What do you think? --MonkeeSage :Works for me. AFAIK, no one who does not accept this definition identify themselves as Christian. Any objections? :On a related topic, the recently imported Christology article has a lot of red links. Archola 06:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC) This synthesis is really sharp in my opinion. Another suggestion for a definition of a Christian is one who believes the words of Jesus as written in the Gospels and accepts them as truth. After that we can explore what Jesus exactly says and we do not start from denomanational (how do you write this?) lines, but start from the words of Jesus 86.80.162.206 08:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC) I Like it, as a non-denominational Christian, it still includes me and almost any other mainstream Christian Branch I can think of. My only question is, do we have any Coptic Christians here, I don't know if they are Pauline or not. P.S. Thanks to our Benevolent Bureaucrat for pointing me here. Dragoonmac 08:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) :Yes, Coptic Christians (e.g., Ethiopian Orthodox) accept the Pauline epistles. They have an 81 book canon, which includes more books (deuterocanonicals, Clement and others) than the Protestant 66 book canon, and doesn't subtact any that I know of. :Ps. 86.80.162.206: I'm not sure how your suggestion is any different from what I suggested. If one accepts Jesus' words as truth, then they accept: ::John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV). :The only difference I see is if someone rejects the Pauline epistles? --MonkeeSage 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC) ::As I understand it, Mormons for one only accept the epistels and whatnot only as far as they are "Correctly translated", in other words, they don't tend to trust what it says if it is not in line with Mormon doctrine. I think they put it up a pedastel near the BoM, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenant, where the BoM is like preferred or something, its a bit complicated. So many people might come here and think there are grounds to somehow argue that the NT isn't right or something, I think we need to head off that possiblity somehow, but if setting policy in favor of the NT being correct in every way will do it, then by all means, do it. Homestarmy 14:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Statement of Faith Hi folks. I think we have made some real progress towards something which is ultimately an extremely difficult issue to tackle, namely how to define a Christian. I am pleased about this. On the article page, I am beginning to write a finalized CPOV, aka "statement of faith." I think our CPOV policy could take a similar format to the CARMpedia Statement of Faith. If you want to post here, you have to accept: *God exists *The Bible *The Pauline Epistles *yadda yadda *The above is an example only ;) I think we have reached a point where discussion is slowing down or stopping because we essentially have little more to say about the topic... all of our views have pretty much been laid out. At this time I would like to call for a vote on specific proposals. Please add a section for any new proposals you have as to what should be included in our finalized statement of faith to the article page. Include a section header: Proposal X Type your proposal here. A specific, bullet statement that would actually appear on the CPOV. To keep it organized, this would be followed by votes. for or against with optional comments, but no discussion. Discussion should be limited to relevant sections of this page. I have gotten us started on the article page, with some things I'd imagine will be universally accepted. :) -- nsandwich 06:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :What's yadda yadda: do we have to accept Seinfeld as scripture? Seriously, though, the mainstream churches generally accept a Nicene-Chalcedonian POV, ie, they accept both the Trinity and the Dual Nature of Christ. Orthodoxpedia limits themselves to this; ie, their viewpoint is Eastern Orthodox, but not Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian-Nestorian. CARM's statement of faith is particularly conservative Protestant. :Also, what's the Bible? The 27-book NT cannon is particularly Protestant; both Catholic and Orthodox books accept additional books within the OT and NT (and different books at that! :We have (or have tried to, portions are still missing!) uploaded the Book of Mormon. LDS folk are neither Nicene nor Chalcedonian, and disagree even among themselves as to whether their version of the three-person Godhead is trinitarian, tritheistic, or something else. Also the Jehovah's Witnesses thing is still up in the air. :Except for the "yadda yadda" thing, your statement excludes the Ebionites (but modern Ebionites identify as Jews anyway), and includes Pauline Christianity by definition (both Trinitarian and Nontrintarian). it does include both Mormons and JW's. I'm not sure about the Gnostics, but AFAIK modern post-Hag Nagabi Gnostics identify as Pagan/Occult/New Age rather than as Christian. :Finally, I know that conservative and fundamentalist Christians are going to argue for a narrower definition of "Christian." Just a heads up. Archola 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::Sorry Archie. There must be some confusion. The blockquote I have above is just an example of what a point-by-point statement of faith would look like. The actual content of it is completely irrelevant. The ACTUAL proposals will be at the article page. Please post your own proposals if you have any to that page. -- nsandwich 09:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :::I'm not sure what the confusion is. I saw a post and I commented. At this moment I do not have any proposals. Archola 09:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::::ok nevermind then. Cheers on the boldness by the way. Also, Seinfeld is Scripture, as far as I'm concerned. Call me a Seinfeldian. -- nsandwich 10:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) By definition, any definition will exclude some (e.g., Nag Hamadi and DSS adherents). So far I'm all for, on every point. BTW, I thought "Yadda Yadda" was the old Yiddish lady who lives up the block...I'm cools with her. :) --MonkeeSage 11:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I have an idea I have yet another proposel. How about "The Bible is always right"? This doesn't really try to blast alternate interpretations of stuff or interpretations of things which can sometimes be pretty far out, nor does it exclude deuderocanonical or whateveronical books, but it does exclude the possibility of people coming in and saying "Weeeeell, the Bible could of possibly maybe not of been entirely accurate here" and then just making up stuff, which would be annoying and very non-Christian. It also excludes the possibility of certain denominations (cough cough) attempting to contradict the Bible by putting more "authoritative" works "above" the Bible, as if there was a set of 3 (more or less) "better" or "more accuratly translated" works. This proposel also doesn't quite address issues of which Bible's are fake and which are real, such as the NIV, KJV, NRSB, and all of those against the Mormon Bible translation, the NWT, those fake New Age Bibles, (Junk about God being a women, scarily wrong stuff) or whatever, but nonetheless, I think "The Bible is always right" is still a useful standard we could use. Homestarmy 13:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :One catch to that. Is the Bible always literally right, or figuratively right. That whole debate is the proverbial pink elephant in the room. From a Literal standpoint, many of the old testaments stories are, well difficult to subscribe to. I'd point to the Noah's Ark, an Article I improted from wikipedia (and will work on, school's really tough right now). From a literal standpoint, Noah's ark is difficult to believe. All issues of the deluge aside, how did Noah fit every species of clean and unclean animal on the ark. How were they cared for for 40 days and 40 nights (which some of my religion professors tell me is an idiomatic expression meaning a long time (a whole other issue Time in the Bible)) From a figurative standpoint, as a sort of Parable about the love of God, and the strength of the church, however, Noah's ark makes a lot more sense. Additionally, how do we interpret Proverbs, or (Lord help us) Psalms. Not trying to start an argument (or claiming to have an answer) but I think this point needs to be more specific. Sorry for any spelling mistakes/typos, its late and I have class in the morning. --Dragoonmac - Talk 09:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ::If that is a pink elephant, this is probably a pink elephant with a red bowtie...but "literal" and "figurative" are not well defined...perhaps the story of the Ark is "literal" in that it speaks of a true event, but "figurative" in that it refers to the number of species necessary to propigate all the ante-deluvian species by individuation to whatever method, by the term "all/each"? I am not trying to start an argument here either, but I take issue when we bifurcate "literal" and "figurative" too strongly, as if there can't be elements of both in a single narrative (not saying that you did this, just making the point for posterity!). --MonkeeSage 11:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) :::How literal is literal? There is a theory that Noah's Ark (and similar references in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other sources) refer to a real event of c.5600 BC. Not a global flood, but a megaflood that affected a large chunk of the middle east—which was "the whole world" to its inhabitants. Archola 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC) :::To cite sources: # Religious tolerance website # Ryan, William and Walter Pitman. Noah's Flood : The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History. Simon & Schuster, 2000. ISBN 0684859203. Archola 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ::::Technically speaking, my idea alone doesn't really clarify figurative vs. non-figurative, I merely meant it so that nobody could come along and say "Well, the Bible was probably wrong here or incorrect, so im just going to put in the totally correct secular humanist anti-Christian POV mmmk?". Noah's ark is actually a very interesting debate, alot of the hull stress thing apparently has to do with sailing ships vs. barges and whatnot, but I don't think simply affirming that "The Bible is always right" necessarily has to get into literal vs. figurative debates on certain issues. If I may point out, even Paul said something about "And this is figurative...." for I think the 2 sons of Abraham and something about the covenants, so sometimes the Bible literally is figurative if that makes any sense :). Homestarmy 01:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC) ::: Gonna break the mold and start responding going this way... I like that, but I still have the worry that some crazy fundamentalist ( no offense, the modifier "crazy" is there for a reason) might take the literal bit to far. I dont like the idea of Secular Humanists taking over, but I dont like the idea of Jack Chick coming along and putting (is that right, or is that a golf term?) in a bunch of stuff on the Roman Catholic Page, about how they are all all going to hell because of some esoteric piece of poetery in Psalms, or justifiying slavery on a page because of rabbinic law and something written in a letter by Paul (who was a sinner just like us). I think a possible compromise might be a line "I believe the Bible is Divinely inspired" or something along those lines, becaue I definately think we need a safeguard, but not one that could bite us later. --Dragoonmac - Talk 20:55, 5 April 2006 (PDT) ::::Paul was an expert at putting, you heretic, and Jesus drove for an average of 500 yards. What are you, some kind of Novatian or Marcionite or something?! --MonkeeSage 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :::::Come on now, Jesus is God incarnate. He hits a hole in one every single time! No one can beat him. "Divinely inspired" is great, obviously there are spiritual things in the Bible that can only be approximated by earthly language. Still, it all comes from God, whether literal or allegorical. Archola 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The Bible is Divinely inspired. # Strong AgreeArchola 13:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC) # Strong Agree --Hayson1991 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC) My two cents I have a problem including Mormons as 'Christians'. This is not to say they are bad people, but if we are going to go with a BIBLICAL definition of what a 'Christian' is than I point to the following: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they Christians continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer" (Acts 2:41, 42) and "He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can refute1 those who oppose it. . . . You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine" (Tit. 1:9; 2:1) Now, knowing this, I cannot justify what the Mormons say with regards to God having to EARN his divinity, thereby saying that God has NOT been God for all eternity. Joseph Smith stated: "For I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith) Which is, of course, refuted in the Bible by: Psalm 90:2: "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." and Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no searching of his understanding" (Is. 40:28) There is also the little matter of the Mormons teaching that God is flesh...literally....not in any sort of representative way: "God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans" (Doctrine of Covenants, 130:22) If we go by a Biblical standard, which we SHOULD, we cannot include Mormons as 'Christians'. This, of course, doesn;t mean we hate them or kick them off of here, I'm just trying to present another side of it. TruthCrusader 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :Looks spot on to me. I don't know if we're yet to where we're concentrating on specific groups yet, it seems to me some of the more wide-reaching things we are proposing can hopefully take out all possibility of conflict from many groups in some very large, highly effect swoops. Homestarmy 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Regarding the Mormon view, first let me address the easier one about God having literal flesh. Mormons believe that when mankind was created in the image of God, that this was literal—that is, that God the Father has a human form, like God the Son. But this doesn't necessarily mean that God is limited to a human form, and Mormons believe that the Holy Ghost does not have a human form. I don't see that there is a radical difference (though perhaps a dramatic difference) between this view and other more tradional Christian views of the trinity. That is, instead of just God the Son having a human form and aspects of God the Father and the Holy Ghost not, Mormons believe that God the Father has (or at least can take) a human form. The other issue a bit more complicated, but something Christian philosophers have wrestled with for years (I'll try to come back with some sources, but much of it is related to the debate over ex nihilo creation). First, although we Mormons Joseph Smith as a prophet, that does not imply that we believe everything Joseph Smith ever uttered was in the capacity of a prophet, or that he was infallible or perfect. Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith is not part of the Mormon cannon, and I at least am not aware of any official Mormon doctrine regarding this. However, D&C 19 discusses this "mystery" in a way that suggests that although perhaps Godhood is an eternal concept, the use of the terms eternal, everlasting, and endless in the scriptures may not be meant in the literal, philosophic way we have a tendency to read them. That is, the scriptures are not meant to be read as statements of philosophical truths about God's nature, but the scriptures are written to teach us how to draw closer to God, how to live, how to serve others etc. From this perspective, God is eternal, everlasting, and endless, and there are several Mormon-specific scriptures that state these as characteristics of God. Even though I don't believe there is an official statement of doctrine on this point, many Mormons believe/speculate (as Joseph Smith seemed to be doing) God at some point God became a god, and that God's plan is for us to become like Him. Two bible scriptures that could be suggesting this include Ps 82:6 and John 10:25-39, as discussed here. Regardless, these are doctrines that are considered mysteries by Mormons, meaning we don't have good understandings of them, and they are not central to our salvation. Instead, Mormons are continually admonished to focus on the first principles of the gospel, viz. faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost.http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/4#4,http://scriptures.lds.org/heb/6/1-2#1 (other related Bible references are given in the last paragraph of this page on the official LDS website). I know that these concepts are very different than a normal Christian reading of the Bible (the latter issue being radically different), and hence very different than the normal Christian view, which is why Mormons are often not considered Christian, and why the cult label for Mormons is not uncommon. I don't really think it's my place to say whether this site should consider Mormons Christian or not, I'm just trying to clarify the Mormon views on these issues as I understand them. (Sorry for the length here, this probably should be moved to a more appropriate page at some point....) --Robert C. 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :I think that when Joseph Smith, in a discourse to the congregation, basically says "Lots of people are ignorant of what God is really like: I'm going to tell you exactly what God is like..." then you pretty much have to believe that he was not just speculating, but claiming to be giving revelation (see King Follet sermon). Also, D&C 130 makes it clear that the Father has flesh and bones like any other man 130:22. Gordon Hinckley has said as recently as 1994: ::On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Conference Report, 1994). :And even if this is somehow not "official," it is certainly the practical belief of every LDS elder I've ever met. --MonkeeSage 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks esp. for the 1994 Hinckley quote, I wasn't aware of that. To nit pick, there's still a bit of an issue as to how authoritative this statement was since the statement was made before Hinckley was the president/prophet of the Mormon church, and he seems to have distanced himself a bit from claiming this as official doctrine in interviews with the press once he was became the prophet (e.g with Time, Larry King Live, and 60 Minutes). But you're right that "God was once like man" is a generally held belief among Mormons. And you're right that General Conference statements are considered "fairly authoritative" (King Follett Discourse is considered less authoritative since it wasn't a general conference, it was transcribed by someone else, and it didn't go through the same kind of write-out and review process as General Conference reports, or the canonization process that would make a statement approved as scripture for Mormons, i.e. accepted into the D&C today; so oftentimes recorded statements made by prophets are considered simply opinions as opposed to authoritative doctrine...). --Robert C. 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :::Fair enough. :) --MonkeeSage 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Proposal 5 comment here for discussion Actually, the Bible does outline another path to salvation. Simply keep every single word of the Law, and you'll be without sin and be saved :D. Of course, that's impossible because the Bible says all have sinned, but still, semantics can sometimes be important, and Jesus did as I recall tell this to that rich person in the "eye of the needle" thing.... Homestarmy 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :But, aren't you born a sinner? --Hayson1991 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::I know, that's part of the point, but im just saying, even though it is impossible for any person to actually keep the law, it's just a semantics thing :D. I guess the proposel works anyway. Homestarmy 05:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Proposal 3 moved here for discussion What is the definition of intolerant here, in my experience, this often means "If you show disagreement with minority opinions, you will be ostracized." and that's not really acceptable for a debate. "Intolerant" could be defined as "Not acknowladging that other sides could be a Christian", and that would be bad. Homestarmy 13:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :I agree, we may have to flesh this description out a little more. I still think it needs to be in there, but perhaps we could have a more explicit definition of what constitutes intolerance. I think in general, people can figure out what "be respectful" means. -- nsandwich 19:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::Im not challenging the respect part, (Though some people might define respect weird too, but the dictionary definition is pretty clear) it's just the tolerance part that's plain up in the air to me. Homestarmy 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Proposal Z I think one of the issues that we're going to have is that mainstream Christianity does regard several groups as "cults" or "false doctrines." LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarian Universalism are the three big ones that come to mind. Whereas their doctrinal differences aren't always that numerous, a lot of them are very, very severe. Insinuations about divinity, salvation, and so forth cause a lot of division in the "church" and it always seems to be "them vs. everyone else." We need to realize, we cannot accept every single doctrinal standpoint. We cannot say "Jesus was not God. Jesus was God." We cannot say "The Bible is the only inspired word of God. The Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, are the inspired words of God." We cannot say "All can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who were chosen by God can be saved. Only those who profess a certain doctrinal view can be saved." I'm not saying we need to whip out the Baptist Faith and Message. I am saying, we need to be ready and willing to exclude. As much as we are going to externally exclude Islam, Buddhism, and Wiccanism from being "Christian" perspectives, we need to be ready to internally exclude practices and doctrines that do not fall in line with the general concensus of Christian scholarship. That is not to say that we aren't going to list them here in full article detail, but we need to be fully willing to say "this denomination does not fit the perspective of mainstream Christianity and therefore may not be Scripturally accurate or follow established CPOV." This is why the councils met hundreds of years ago. They realized that they had to exclude in order to clean out what was not divinely authorized. The Gospel of Thomas didn't make the cut. The Gnostics didn't make the cut. I do not mean to be offensive to any individual, but at the end of the day, some people are just going to be wrong, and it's up to the Word of God and the concensus of this group that will determine what we do and do not sanction. --Avery W. Krouse 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :Avery: You raise good points. This also brings up the question of whether our definition of "Christian" should focus on institutions/beliefs, or personal status -- I think we are talking about the former rather than the latter, which means that we should seriously consider your points. --MonkeeSage 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Related to Avery's point, which I think is a very good one, I think there should be an addendum to proposal 7 (or a new propsal) regarding the general acceptance of the Bible, and only the Bible (and whichever books are agreed upon as canonical), as Scripture. As a Mormon, I think it would be absurd and offensive for me to post something to this site in a way that assumes others believe the Book of Mormon as scripture. Similarly, if apocryphal works are mentioned, I think it would make sense to mention them only in a way reflecting the fact that they are not considered canonical by the general Christian community. I think this site can (and probably should, if it wants to be inclusive) be agnostic about whether these writings are inspired of God or not. Seems to me there should be a policy somewhere that makes this view, or something like it, explicit. --Robert C. 23:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC) CPOV vs. Administrative Policy vs. What is a Christian We need to reevaluate the placement and topicality (is that a word?) of our current discussions here. *Discussions of appropriate language to use, images, and editor behavior falls under administrative policy, and has nothing to do with "What is a Christian". *CPOV should pertain to the format, tone, and presentation of our articles. The content should be judged on a Christian Point of View, based on a concensus. We're going to quickly get into issues when it comes to how to CPOV Homosexuality, Abortion, and so forth. We have to establish what the "Christian" point of view(s) is/are, and be very clear about our presentation about them. *The page of "What is a Christian" should be relegated to "A Christian believes...", "A Christian does...", "A Christian practices...". Currently, there's very little on the adjoining page that reflects this. Just some thoughts for consideration. --Avery W. Krouse 21:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :Yup Avery, I am planning on moving the stuff we agree upon here to the appropriate pages afterwards. I just enjoy having a single place to vote for now, for the sake of convenience until we have more established policies. -- nsandwich 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Proposal 4 Just a quick note: I've reworded Proposal 4. I'd consider this an established matter of CKB Policy, not a part of this actual page, and I've added the term "elected" to reflect the future state of CKB administration selection. --Avery W. Krouse 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :Thanks. Your version was better. I have changed it again slightly on the final CPOV policy page. Of course, by "final", I mean: still undergoing furious revamping :) -- nsandwich 07:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Proposal 6 I'd perhaps suggest that we agree to recognize the 27 books of the New Testament as confirmed at the Council of Trent to be our authoritative list. Apocrypha and deuterocanonical books not included. --Avery W. Krouse 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :Which is not the Council of Trent, but the books Martin Luther included in his German translation of the Bible. The Council of Trent affirmed the Catholic deuterocanonical books. Tobit, Judith and the like. Archola 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ::Go ahead and slap it up there as Proposal 7, Avery! -- nsandwich 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) :::I can think of no legitimate reason why any deuterocanonical or pseudographical or whatever books would be helpful for any reason :/. And if I understand some finer points of Macabees correctly, they could be quite harmful.... Homestarmy 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ::::If we are aiming to be a "Christian Knowledge Base" we need to take into account that the duterocanonical gospels are the basis for a good deal of (Usually Orthodox and Catholic) beliefs. Most of the lore surrounding the Lance of Longinus and the Holy Grail, two relics of the Catholic Church, is rooted in the Gospel of Nicodemus. The foundation for Pugatory (I think) is in Maccabees. Regardless of, as individuals, we believe in these concepts or not, we should cover them. I think for that reason we should include and cite duterocanon, but when doing so, mention that it is duterocanon we are citing. --Dragoonmac - Talk 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC) :::::Ok, maybe now I can think of a good reason. (Or several). Some of the lore related stuff I suppose would kind of need them to be mentioned, but the knowladge base doesn't have to present them as authoritative.... 01:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC) A Notice Wanted to inform everyone that the CPOV page has been updated to reflect some of the recent developments and decisions here. Let's keep up the good work. Please note that a couple of the proposals (e.g. no porn) seemed like they didn't fit with the CPOV, but would be more appropriate at an "Editorial Guidelines" or "Rules and Regulations" policy page or something (as per Avery). We could have other guidelines like the 3RR on there as well. I have yet to create such a page, because I am now going to sleep :) -- nsandwich 07:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Proposal 7 here for discussion I submitted proposal 7 mainly because of John 1:1 in the Mormon bible: In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. (Joseph Smith Inspired Version, John 1:1). Compare that to the Christian Bible NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1 New International Version). I was shocked when I read the difference, so, this is why I submitted proposal 7. If any version of the Bible does not say something bizarre like the Mormon bible, I will include it into the proposal. --Hayson1991 14:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Three suggestions: * RSV: Revised Standard Version. As widely used as KJV and NIV. * TEV: The Good News in Today's English Version. Meaning-for-meaning rather than a literal translation, but still better than a paraphrase like The Living Bible. * Bible, World English: Our online Bible. Used mainly because it's in the public domain. Archola 15:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) * What about New World Translation? Yes I know some people like it but well, we can use it compare to other Bibles and see the difference... --inky 22:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Our online bible is not bad, but I never intended for it to be the only one. I am planning on putting up other versions as soon as I can do so, and as long as I can get around the copyright. That being said, I think we should try to stick to just a couple versions (2 or 3) at the most. For one thing, I'd like to be able to have a link to any one of the online bibles directly from the citation. Secondly, most of the bibles are 99.9% similar. There is little point in having 2 dozen "acceptable" bibles if they are all essentially the same. That would just confuse people. In cases where a particular bible belonging to an accepted Christian denomination (as per the rules on CPOV) really differs from the KJV, I am cool with having a section allowed on that particular article. Such as: "Mormon views on the Trinity" which could explain that Mormons have a different view, and could cite an offline LDS Bible. AS LONG AS it is clear that these views and this bible are unique to Mormonism and differ from the mainstream. Those are my thoughts. The main idea here is lets stick to just a couple of bibles. KJV, WE, and NIV would be my candidates since they are good quality translations with wide acceptance. Pretty sure I can get around the KJV copyright (need to investigate further.) Not sure at all about the NIV since I haven't looked. As long as they're free to repreint for non-commercial use, we're good, and will soon have them online. -- nsandwich 23:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :Obviously not the Joseph Smith Inspired Version (even the LDS edition of the scriptures use the exact KJV with Joseph Smith changes put into footnotes; it's not clear that these changes should be considered canonical even by Mormons...). My sense of Biblical scholarship is that the RSV is the most common version used. The others I would vote for would be KJV, NIV, and maybe the NASB (though only a few changes from the RSV in the NASB). --Robert C. 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC) moved from article ::I propose that we leave the New World out of the discussion for now, im sure if we need to we'll get to that eventually. Homestarmy 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :::Agreed. A good many Christians would find the "translations" of the NWT in several key passages to be rather disturbing. By the same token, we should leave out the Joseph Smith "translation" (see, e.g., the "not" Rom. 4:5 in the JST). An article on each should be created and templated accordingly, but they are too controverial to be listed in the KB list. --MonkeeSage 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC) snip The ESV is also becoming widely used (especially among conservatives here in America). It is an update to the ASV. The Greek scholar Bill Mounce was head of the NT translation committee. --MonkeeSage 00:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC) The KJV is still under a perpetual (British) crown copyright. Outside of the UK, though, it is public domain. I'm not sure what that means on the internet, since obviously people in the UK can access our site. NIV is copyright Zondervan Publishers. Last time I checked, quotations were limited to 1/4 of a book of the Bible, and there may be additional restrictions. AFAIK, RSV is used far more often than ESV or ASV. Archola 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :As far as I'm concerned, NIV is out for the reason stated above. Regrettable, I agree. What's the story on RSV's copyright? Anyone know? -- nsandwich 00:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Actually, BibleGateway.com has complete copyright information. Archola 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) New International Version The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows: Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society. These Scriptures have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or re-posting the Scripture on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form but must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale--to include online banner ads that encapsulate linkages to these Scriptures for the purpose of selling online ad space. These Scriptures are free for all online use. These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated. When quotations from the NIV text are used in non-salable media such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initial NIV must appear at the end of each quotation. Any commentary or other Biblical reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the New International Version must obtain written permission for the use of the NIV text. Permission requests for commercial use within the U.S. and Canada that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to, and approved in writing by, Zondervan, 5300 Patterson Avenue SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49530. Permission requests for commercial use within the U.K., EEC, and EFTA countries that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to, and approved in writing by, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., a member of the Hodder Headline Plc. Group, 338 Euston Road, London NW1 3BH. :UPDATE: I have sent an email to the publisher requesting permission to use it. I don't think it's too likely that it would be granted, but it was worth a shot! -- nsandwich 01:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Revised Standard Version Sorry, Biblegateway.com does not have this. According to Wikipedia: Copyright 1971, National Council of Churches. Here's some things I didn't know: it's an update to the ASV, and there have been two updates to the RSV itself: the 1989 New RSV, and the 2001 ESV. King James Version Perpetual crown copyright in the UK, public domain elsewhere. Other Any other versions I could look up? Archola 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) Hehe "Young's Literal Translation" is in the public domain, but good luck trying to read it! It's horribly inaccessible: Check out Genesis 1 :I know Crosswalk has the RSV available, though I'm not sure if there's copyright info given. Here's an interesting chart describing the different translations in terms of how literal vs. how paraphrasing they are. :Since many commentaries (at least scholarly ones, e.g. Word Biblical Comentary and The Anchor Bible) use their own translations (usually using a mix of the Pentateuch, Septuagint, Masoretic text, and Textus Receptus, at least for the Old Testament, as do most of the translations being discussed here—I think...), and since it's not too hard to look up Hebrew and Greek words nowdays with online interlinear bibles, it might be worth putting a policy statement about using original language texts. That is, as I think was suggested above somewhere, have a few "standard use translations" available and typically used on this site, but not close the door on discussing original language issues when they arise.... :--Robert C. 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Agree about the original languages. I'm not sure it has to be a policy issue, though. --MonkeeSage 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC) NET The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry. The Bible is God’s gift to humanity – it should be free. (Go to www.bible.org and download your free copy.) Permission is available for the NET Bible to be printed royalty-free for organizations like the The Gideons International who print and distribute Bibles for charity. (from Preface). --MonkeeSage 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :On its face, NET looks to me like a great candidate. I can write a bot to import it. Do we know anything about the quality of the translation? Does it have any crazy/ridiculous verses? Anyone have a judgments regarding its quality? I would need to know before I explicitly support it. -- nsandwich 02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::Here's a positive review that looks carefully thought out and reasoned. Another review is here. It seems the main advantage of the NET is the extensive footnotes. How would you use the footnotes on this site? If you can take advantage of the footnotes, I'd say the NET makes the most sense for web-based study. ::On the other hand, I looked up Isaiah 28:9-13 b/c it's a tricky passage to interpret the punctuation for (here's some discussion of some the issues). Whereas the NAS, RSV, ESV, ASV, NKJV, and HCSB all use question marks in v. 9, the NET uses exclamation marks (the KJV uses periods...). The fact that it's such a minority opinion on this makes me a little nervous about using it.... --Robert C. 03:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::: Oh no that's bad news for me! I will have to rewrite the "B_Cite" template to accomodate NET Bible! NOOOOO!!! :) --inky 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :::The question of footnotes was one I was wondering about also. The whole text+footnotes is around 10 mb, in hypertext format, so it would take up alot of space! Here are some reviews and comments from notable Christian personalities at bible.org. I have not found anything really objectionable, and I've been using it for several years (I even have a hardcopy). Minor issues of syntax, emphasis and the like aside, I haven't found anything to make me suspicious of it. The translations committees were composed of evangelical scholars of all different denominations; including, Robert B. Chisholm, Richard A. Taylor, Eugene H. Merrill, Darrell L. Bock, and Daniel B. Wallace. --MonkeeSage 03:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ESV *You may only access 500 verses per query, and you may only perform 500 queries per day. *You may not locally store more than 500 consecutive verses or one-half of any book of the Bible (whichever is less). *The text may be redistributed further (for example, via email or an RSS feed). You may distribute up to 500 verses, as long as the verses quoted do not amount to 50% of a complete book of the Bible and do not make up 50% or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. *You may not display more than 500 consecutive verses or one-half of any book (whichever is less) on any page. (from ESV site). --MonkeeSage 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :: This site sounds quite greedy. --inky 03:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) :::From what I understand, that's a pretty standard Bible copyright, similar to the NIV, NASB, NRSV, et al. --MonkeeSage 03:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC) ::::Standard or not, it seems a bit unhelpful. Besides, what are they gonna do if we copy it all, sue us? Cus that'd be blatant hypocracy.....(Im pretty certain the Bible specifically, clearly, and literally tells us not to take other brothers to court.) But whatever, we've got other Bible's we can copy :D Homestarmy 18:44, 5 April 2006 (PDT)